TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2001: FURTHER COMMENTS AS REQUESTED

SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SALGA): SUBMISSION TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON LABOUR AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES): TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2001:

___________________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of the report is to indicate to the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises the profound impact that the legislation assented to on 30 November 2001 by the President of the Republic will have on the ability of local government to perform its functions and to sustain its autonomy as well as the fact that SALGA was not afforded appropriate opportunity, as contemplated in the Constitution, to influence the impacting legislation.

BACKGROUND

Sequence of events

During 1991/92 a national task team comprising of key government departments and the United Municipal Executive (UME) conducted an investigation into the provision of a three-digit national emergency telephone service in South Africa. This investigation culminated in the promulgation of the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993. The then predecessor of SALGA, the UME, played a pivotal role in the investigation and the promulgation of the legislation and empowered local government to render a comprehensive free of charge emergency communication service to communities.

The National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 was administered by the then Department of Constitutional Development (now the Department of Provincial and Local Government) in consultation with the Interdepartmental Committee (IDC). The IDC comprised of the SAPS, SANDF, Organised Local Government, Telkom as well as other ad hoc role players. In July 1998 the administration of the Act was however, re-assigned to the Department of Communications (DoC) by Cabinet. During October 1998 representatives of the Department of Communications, under the leadership of the Director General of the Department, commenced with a fact finding investigation into the application of the Act and early in 1999 Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton was appointed as official consultants of the Department of Communications with the task to investigate emergency communication in South Africa. DoC was informed that SALGA would be participating in the investigation by means of assigned technical advisors.

Throughout 1999 Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton conducted workshops in major urban centres with the view to obtain the inputs of all stakeholders. Local government representatives (of the Provincial Associations) consistently without exception maintained that the existing National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1998, provided a more than adequate legal framework but that the funding of the so-called ‘107-centres’ should receive specific attention as local government could effectively fund such facilities in accordance with the then provisions contained in the Act. Local government representatives also maintained the view that technology requirements should provide for those less financially strong local government structures in rural areas. Local government representatives also consistently stressed the inter-relationship between effective disaster management and the ‘107-service’. The views conveyed by local government representatives of the provincial associations followed discussions between themselves and the assigned technical advisor of SALGA with the view to ensure synergy of purpose.

The first national workshop pertaining to the investigation was held in July 1999 but DoC failed to extend an official invitation to SALGA. Following discussions between the Manager: Policy Development and Advocacy of SALGA and the assigned technical SALGA advisor a letter in this regard was sent to DoC on 30 July 1999. A copy of the letter is attached as ANNEXURE A. To date no explanation was received from DoC for failure to involve SALGA.

On 27 September 1999 the concerns of the undersigned, following statements made by Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton during provincial workshops, were communicated to the then Committee Co-ordinator of SALGA, Mr Joe Hiralal. A letter in this regard is attached as ANNEXURE B.

During November 1999 a national workshop was held in Midrand by DoC aimed at honing the final recommendations. The position statement of the technical advisors of SALGA, as discussed with the Manager: Policy Development and Advocacy, is attached as ANNEXURE C. At this workshop DoC clearly indicated its intention to (a) establish a separate structure for the rendering of emergency communication services in South Africa and (b) to repeal the existing National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1998. These indications were met with fierce opposition from all local government representatives (SALGA as well as the provincial associations). Local government representatives were firmly of the opinion that should new legislation be envisaged, DoC should follow the Green Paper/White Paper process in order to ensure transparency and participation. SALGA representatives clearly indicated to the consultants and to DoC that the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1998 provided a legal framework for local government to render a comprehensive, free of charge, service to its residents and that such empowering legislation could not simply be repealed without the consent of local government. At this point in the debate, DoC questioned the credentials of the local government representatives. These facts were immediately reported to the Manager: Policy Development and Advocacy of SALGA with the request that the Director General of DoC be officially informed of the official nature of the representation of local government in the workshop. Local government representatives in no uncertain terms expressed their categorical opposition to the repealing of the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 without a Green and White Paper process having been followed as was the case with disaster management.

On 2 March 2000 the final report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton was submitted to the Minister for Communications without SALGA having seen the document or afforded any opportunity to comment on such. At the time thus SALGA was not aware of the existence of the report.

On 23 June 2000 after a copy of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report was obtained through a third party, comments on the report was submitted to the Social and Economic Development Working Group of SALGA. A copy of the report containing the comments is attached as ANNEXURE D. The Social & Economic Working Group of SALGA requested its technical advisors to compile a position statement pertaining to the rendering of the ‘107-service’ for submission to DoC when requested to do so, but prior to the completion of such report, a Cabinet memorandum based on the findings and report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton was already submitted to Cabinet. At no stage was SALGA requested to comment on the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report (in fact SALGA was not even provided with a copy of the said report). The sequence of events made it very clear that DoC had no intention of consulting with SALGA.

On 31 July 2000 a letter was sent to the Chief Director: Disaster Management of the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) requesting a meeting with the objective to align the views of the technical advisors of SALGA with that of DPLG with regard to the proposed disaster management legislation and to discuss the contents of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report. A copy of this letter is attached as ANNEXURE E.

On 30 August 2000 a further letter was sent to the Chief Director: Disaster Management of DPLG confirming key aspects of the discussions held between DPLG and the technical advisors of SALGA. A copy of this letter is attached as ANNEXURE F. In this letter it will be noted that the Chief Director: Disaster Management requested SALGA to submit its comments on the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report to DoC despite the fact that the latter at no stage officially requested the comments of SALGA.

On 30 August 2000, in line with the request of the Chief Director: Disaster Management of DPLG, a letter (ANNEXURE G) was sent to DoC. This letter confirms the following facts –

DoC did not officially provide SALGA with an official copy of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report

DoC did not officially request any comments from SALGA on the report prior to submitting the Cabinet memorandum or the preparing and submitting of related legislation

SALGA did, in writing submit its comments to DoC clearly indicating the position of SALGA

DoC did not react to the concerns and objections of Organised Local Government.

Objective analysis: How would the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 impact on metropolitan and district municipalities?

The Telecommunications Act, 1996 as amended by the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 will impact on both Category A and C municipalities in as much as that the resources of both metropolitan and district municipalities will be compromised to emergency events by the 112-Emergency Centres and both metropolitan and district municipalities will have to fund the 112-Emergency Centres (see section 29 of the Amendment Act).

During the 1999 Annual Conference, SALGA resolved that the ‘107-service’ should be rendered by metropolitan and district municipalities with the explicit view to ensure equitable access to services throughout South Africa. This view of SALGA concurs with the objective of metropolitan and district municipalities to ensure equitable service access and delivery in all parts of the Country. It could be argued that the new ‘112-service’ will provide such equitable access in particular rural areas and that local communities could therefore benefit. Fact is that the district or local municipality must still deliver the required response service. It is senseless to simply provide emergency telephone access when the required response services must be delivered locally. The National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 compelled the service provider (local government) to meet the service expectations of the general public – thus should one use the 107-emergency number to the metropolitan or district emergency centre, the required response service will be provided. The National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 compelled the service provider to develop and coordinate effective response mechanisms. The new 112-service will not be linked to the resource capacity of local government and could thus create false expectations.

The White Paper on Local Government place a particular emphasis on the IDP and make the following relevant statement about the IDP –

‘They help municipalities to develop a holistic strategy for poverty alleviation. Poverty is not just about low household income. It includes other aspects of deprivation such as a lack of assets to help households cope with shocks and stresses, a lack of the resources or contacts necessary to secure political advantage, a lack of access to education, health care and emergency services, and the lack of safe, secure and adequately sized housing with basic services’.

The new ‘112-service’ will provide telephonic access without local government necessarily being able to respond to the needs of the public. This situation would inevitably lead to fragmentation, conflict of interest and ultimately poor service delivery. The ‘112-service’ does not commit local government to any statutory obligation to respond to information received whereas the National Emergency Telephone Services Act, 1998, committed the service provider to effective appropriate service delivery.

The guideline document ‘Linking Local Economic Development to Poverty Alleviation’ issued by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development (now the Department of Provincial and Local Government), in support of the White Paper on Local Government (Section B, paragraph 1.3), provides the following guidelines pertaining to Local Economic Development and alleviation of poverty as well as the specific role of local government:

‘Overall five broad areas of municipal policy intervention have been identified, based on experience in the developing world of poverty alleviation measures by local government. These areas of municipal policy intervention relate to:

regulatory frameworks;

access to municipal services;

employment creation;

security and protection from crime and natural disasters; and

co-ordination and integration.

The asset base of the poor may be eroded dramatically by the negative consequences of crime, violence or by the impact of disasters such as floods or environmental hazards. Security and protection for the poor are, therefore, critical dimensions of all survival strategies, particularly in what are generally hostile urban settings. Security relates to both individuals and their property while protection is interpreted more broadly to encompass protection from environmental disasters such as floods, fires or pollution.

The poor often are the group most vulnerable to environmental degradation. They live on most marginal land, often in overcrowded conditions. Lack of access to sewerage, sanitation or waste disposal services can have a harmful effect on the poor, who can least afford to bear these costs. The poor are also those most at risk in cases of major floods, fires, earthquakes or other hazards. Protection of the poor from environmental degradation is thus a key element in anti-poverty strategies at the local level. The most important step is for municipalities to become more aware of environmental risk and its incidence amongst different groups in the population and to prepare contingency programmes for emergency relief and measures for disaster prevention.’

Access to an emergency telephone number does not necessarily entail ‘access to municipal services’ and in the case of the ‘112-service’ is simply does not entail ‘co-ordination and integration’. The new provisions in the amended Telecommunication Act, 1996 will be defeating the objective of government to ensure coordinated and integrated, equitable service delivery to all. This view is supported by the Chief Director: Disaster Management of DPLG (see ANNEXURE H)

Relationship between the provisions of the new Chapter 10 of the Telecommunication Act, 1996 (as amended by the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001) and the Disaster Management Bill – possible contradictions

The White Paper on Local Government, reflecting the official policy of government, has the following to say about disaster management –

‘Effective disaster management requires that the resources and capabilities of all spheres of government are co-ordinated to prevent disasters where possible, and deal with them effectively where they occur. Each municipality should pro-actively plan for the prevention and management of disasters. Municipalities should, through their planning and implementation processes seek to minimise the vulnerability of communities and protect people who are at risk’.

Key in the policy of government applicable to local government are the following essentials –

Co-ordination

Prevention

Effectiveness

Pro-active planning

Minimise vulnerability

Risk reduction

The White Paper on Disaster Management has the following to say about government’s policy:

‘In short the policy aims to:

Provide an enabling environment for disaster management

Promote proactive disaster management through risk reduction programmes

Improve South Africa’s ability to manage emergencies or disasters and their consequences in a co-ordinated, efficient and effective manner

Promote integrated and co-ordinated disaster management through partnerships between different stakeholders and through co-operative relations between all spheres of government’

Under the heading ‘Developing a New Approach’ the following policy statement is, inter alia, made:

‘The development of a new approach to disaster management calls for a two-pronged approach:

A significantly strengthened capacity to track, collate, monitor and disseminate information on phenomena and activities known to trigger disaster events, such as droughts, floods, epidemics and fire. This needs to be supported by institutional emergency preparedness and response capacity primarily by government at local, provincial and national levels.

An increased commitment to prevention and mitigation actions that will reduce the probability and severity of disaster events. These actions should be incorporated into existing and future policies, plans and projects of national, provincial and local government, as well as policies and practices of the private sector.’

Under the heading ‘Summary of significant features of the policy’, the following statement is, inter alia, made:

‘The policy signifies a shift away from the disproportionate emphasis given to rare major disasters. It seeks to include relatively smaller household and community disasters and the resulting losses borne by different sectors of society. This is of particular significance in the South African context, with its mixture of developed and developing economies.’

The proposed disaster management legislation contained in the Disaster Management Bill includes the policy approach of government as, reflected above. The Bill is focussed on coordination, integration, prevention, effective response and effective vulnerability and risk management. In order to achieve these objectives metropolitan and district municipalities must establish disaster management centres.

In the Draft Regulations on Disaster Response and Management the following significant and clarifying definitions are reflected –

‘Disaster Management Centre (DMC) (also known as Emergency Operations Centre) – is a physical facility designated, equipped and staffed for –

information gathering and dissemination

disaster analysis

executive decision making

resource management, coordination and deployment; and

the release of warnings to the general public or specific sectors of society.

[It is significant to note that the DMC stands in direct relation to the definition of disaster management. It is a facility, which forms the backbone of the process and does not lonely come into being AFTER the occurrence of a disastrous event. It is the joint facility during the proactive as well as the reactive phase of disaster management]’

‘Disaster management – a continuous and integrated multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary process of planning and implementation of measures aimed at –

preventing or reducing the risk of disasters

mitigating the severity or consequences of disasters

emergency preparedness

a rapid and effective response to disasters; and

post disaster recovery and rehabilitation.

[It is very important to note that disaster management is not limited to post-disaster response as so generally argued but that it is a process of planning and implementation of measures …., clearly involving proactive and reactive responsibilities]’

‘Emergency communication – reflecting the process of reporting of distress events and the coordination of mitigation and response activities whereas the process involves telecommunication infrastructure, trained manpower and operational procedures.

[Effective emergency communication is key to providing access to services and to the effective deployment and utilisation of resources. Without effective emergency communication no effective information management and the subsequent effective coordination of response activities is possible]’

The above definitions contain the essence of the intrinsic practical conflict between the Disaster Management Bill and the now amended Telecommunications Act, 1996. Within the sphere of disaster and emergency management, emergency communication is key to successful deployment and utilisation of resources. To the Department of Communications, emergency communication is simply a generic term linked to the general activities of the Department – something to be included into the sphere of telecommunications.

The Disaster Management Bill aims at streamlining the activities of national, provincial and local government with regard to risk and vulnerability management but the very tool to be used (emergency communication) is now divided into two parts – the one part dealing with primary communication with the public being regulated by the Telecommunications Act, 1996 and the other part dealing with the management of resources being regulated by disaster management legislation. This is a recipe for fragmentation and disaster and stands in total contrast to government’s expressed focus on coordination and integration of effort.

Impact and implications of the provisions of the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 on local government in general.

The new Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 as contained in section 29 and 35 of the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 contains specific provisions pertaining to the repealing of the National Emergency Telephone Services Act, 1993, and empowers the Minister to establish ‘public emergency communications centres to be known as 112 Emergency Centres’. SALGA has no difficulties with the changing of the national emergency number from the numerals 107 to 112 as it would concur with the European standard and it would thus empower tourists. SALGA however has a material problem with the mandate given to the Minister of Communications to establish emergency communication centres. The now repealed National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 enabled local government to apply to the relevant Minister for accreditation whereas such provision has now been repealed implying that the Minister could unilaterally establish such facilities without consulting local government.

Section 78 of Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 refers to specific services rendered by local government such as fire brigade services, traffic services and ‘any other similar organisation providing assistance to the public in emergencies’.

Section 79(3) of Chapter 10 of the said Act stipulates that the 112 Emergency Centre shall be accountable to the Minister for Communications.

Section 80(3) of Chapter 10 of the Act determines that the 112 Emergency Centre ‘shall be entitled to recover from the relevant emergency organisation the reasonable cost that it incurs in transporting such telecommunication’.

Section 80(3) of Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 embodies the concerns of the technical representatives of SALGA all along during the investigations of the consultants that local government will have to render emergency services as dictated to by an external party and that local government will have to fund the costs. In the report submitted to Cabinet by DoC local government was depicted as being disorganised and fragmented and largely unable to render effective emergency communication. No notice was taken of and no reference made to the constitutional responsibilities of local government, the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, 1998, the Local Government: Municipal: Systems Act, 2000 or the Disaster Management Bill, 2000.

Section 82 of Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 now following the promulgation of the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 refers to the mandate of 112 Emergency Centres to establish its own radio networks which provision could result in existing radio networks of local government having to be replaced at the expense of the municipality.

The Telecommunications Act, 1996 now following the promulgation of the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 contain provisions, which unilaterally empowers DoC to control emergency communication at municipal level at the expense of local government. The provisions in the new Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 also take no note of the requirements of the Disaster Management Bill and local government now faces possible gross duplication of expenditure whereas in the majority of cases in South Africa the emergency communication centre and the disaster management centre would be the exact same facility being managed with varying operating procedures during normal day-to-day incidents, major incidents and emergencies as well as disasters.

During the investigations of the consultants the technical representatives of SALGA advocated the caller to foot the bill by means of a standard monthly telephone levy of approximately R2,00 per month on all fixed line and mobile telephones in South Africa. This proposal was clearly rejected by DoC now being mandated by the Telecommunications Act, 1996 to recover costs from local government – costs over which local government will have no control.

Emergency communication is the key interface between local government and its communities. The Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 effectively mandated the stripping of local government of political accountability towards its communities in this regard and entails the rendering of a key service, directly impacting on local communities, by a national department.

Section 40(2) of the Constitution provides for the following provision –

‘All spheres of government must observe and adhere to the principles in this Chapter and must conduct their activities within the parameters that the Chapter provides’.

Against this background section 41 requires the following –

‘(1) All spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere must –

(e) respect the constitutional status, institutions, powers and functions of government in the other spheres;

(f) exercise their powers and perform their functions in a manner that does not encroach on the geographical, functional and institutional integrity of government in another sphere’

The new Chapter 10 of the Telecommunications Act, 1996 contains specific provisions that will directly encroach on the geographical, functional and institutional integrity of local government. The manner in which DoC ignored SALGA during the investigation, consultative and legislative process pertaining to emergency communication in South Africa, does not reflect the observing or respecting of the constitutional principles contained in sections 40(2) and 41 of the Constitution.

Section 154 of the Constitution provides for the following –

‘(1) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must support and strengthen the capacity of municipalities to manage their own affairs, to exercise their powers and to perform their functions.

Draft national or provincial legislation that affects the status, institutions, powers or functions of local government must be published for public comment before it is introduced to Parliament or a provincial legislature in a manner that allows organised local government, municipalities and other interested persons an opportunity to make representations with regard to the draft legislation.’

During the consultative process SALGA representatives made specific proposals aimed at strengthening the capacity of local government (and in particular metropolitan and district municipalities in accordance with SALGA resolutions) to render effective and accessible services to all communities. These proposals were made in concurrence with section 154(1) of the Constitution. The proposals were not taken into consideration. In fact the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 arguably displayed contempt with regard to this fundamental constitutional principle.

The Department of Communications further made no attempt to discuss specific applicable sections contained in the now new Chapter 10 of the amended Telecommunications Act, 1996 with SALGA whereas the bulk of the Act addresses matters, which falls outside the ambit of local government. The Department did not provide SALGA with an official copy of the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report and did not consult SALGA prior to submitting a Cabinet memorandum containing the recommendations contained in the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report.

Section 156(5) of the Constitution states the following –

‘A municipality has the right to exercise any power concerning a matter reasonably necessary for, or incidental to, the effective performance of its functions.’

Arguably the new Chapter 10 of the amended Telecommunications Act, 1996 now contains provisions clearly infringing the constitutional right of local government to provide effective emergency communication necessary for the performance of its functions as provided for in the now repealed National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993.

Local Government in South Africa has gone through major structural and functional changes since 1994 with the view to ensure effective, efficient, equitable and affordable service delivery to all the people of South Africa. The process aimed at eradicating the ills of the past necessitates the realignment of municipal service delivery and the specific sections contained in Chapter 10 of the now amended Telecommunications, 1996, disempowers local government to give effect to such an objective.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT

The President of the Republic be requested to revoke sections 29 and 35 (in so far as it refers to the repealing of the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993) of the Telecommunications Amendment Act, 2001 until the concerns of SALGA have been adequately addressed and accounted for.

Cabinet be requested to consider the entrustment of the administration of the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993 to the Department of Provincial and Local Government.

TECHNICAL TASK TEAM ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT & 107
FUNCTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE RENDERING OF THE 107-SERVICE: A PRINCIPLE APPROACH

DEFINING THE DEPARTURE POINT

Rendering of the 107-emergency telephone service is regulated by the National Emergency Telephone Service Act, 1993, (further referred to as ‘the Act’) and the gazetted functional requirements. This legislation and functional requirements are currently being subjected to a revision process being conducted by Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton (further referred to as ‘the Consultants’) on instruction of the Department of Communications (DoC). From discussions held with the Consultants is became clear that a so-called legal framework aimed at amending the Act has already been compiled for discussion purposes.

From the point of view of the TTT it is however essential that a set of guiding principles be determined before the legal framework could be addressed. It is of material importance for SALGA, as the representative body of the sphere of government primarily responsible for service delivery, to apply its mind to fundamental principles determined in the Constitution, legislation and official government policies as contained in various White Papers. Legislation should become the instrument by means of which these fundamental principles are being effected to the benefit of all peoples of the Republic.

The TTT is of the opinion that the process to be followed in amending existing legislation could be depicted as follows:

CONSTITUTION

I

LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

I
GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES AS CONTAINED IN VARIOUS WHITE PAPERS

I

GUIDING PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE RENDERING OF 107-SERVICE

I
GREEN & WHITE PAPER PROCESS AS WELL AS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO 107-SERVICES

I

AMENDING OF EXISTING ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES

The TTT is of the opinion that it is imperative to (a) address the clear defining of a principle framework and to (b) subject any proposed legislative amendments to scrutiny in terms of the principle framework and whereas (c) the functional requirements will follow amended legislation. It should however be clearly understood that the TTT does not wish to address functional requirements as such would fundamentally be the responsibility of the 107 Interdepartmental Committee (107-IDC).

ADDRESSING THE PRINCIPLES

All functional principles applicable to governmental responsibilities must be evaluated against the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. It is therefore fair to accept the fact that the rendering of the 107-service should be primarily structured in accordance with the general requirements of the Constitution and subsequent applicable legislation and policies.

The Constitution

Applicable Sections of the Constitution includes the following:

Section 9(2) stipulates that legislative and other measures could be applied with the view to protect and develop persons previously denied equality and equity of service levels.

Section 10 requires the protection of the dignity of all persons.

Section 11 secures the right to life of all persons.

The applicability of Sections 9(2), 10 and 11 of the Constitution to the rendering of the 107-service could be found in the provision of equitable access to resources to all persons irrespective of the socio-economic standing of such persons. The marketing of the 107-service, as such, remains an opportunity for local government in realising the developmental objectives of government in general.

Section 27(1)(a), (2) and (3) addresses the right to relevant health care. Applying the co-ordinating possibilities of the 107-service, such objective could be achieved.

Section 28 addresses the basic rights of children.

The overarching co-ordinating capabilities of the 107-service could enhance the effecting of this fundamental objective of government as children could gain direct access to relevant resources.

Section 152(1)(b) addresses the sustainability of service delivery to communities by local government. It is however of significance to note that in the majority of municipal areas of South Africa the resource capability levels for the provision of emergency services such as fire brigade and emergency medical services, as well as policing in general, has materially declined over the past four to five years. This declining of resource capabilities does not, however, imply the inevitable declining of service levels to the communities as improved resource deployment and co-ordination could, by and large, ensure sustained service delivery. The co-ordinating capabilities of the 107-service could play a pivotal role in the co-ordinating of resources application.

Section 152(1)(d) requires the provision and sustaining of a safe and healthy environment to all residents by local government. This objective of the Constitution could only be met in the event of local government being, or becoming, aware of risks and threats to the safety and general health of its communities. The data-collating and co-ordinating abilities of a 107-service could enhance this duty of local government.

Section 153(a) instructs local government to focus its administrative, budgetary and planning capabilities on the basic needs of the community and to promote socio-economic development. Various, RDP-related policies of government are directly linked to the requirements of Section 153(a) and has a direct bearing on the rendering of the 107-service.

Section 195(1) requires public administration to be rendered in a specific manner which would, inter alia, ensure the most beneficial utilisation of resources. In this regard the 107-service could once again play a pivotal role in resource co-ordination.

The White Paper on Local Government.

Developmental Local Government is defined in the White Paper on Local Government, as follows:

‘Developmental local government is local government committed to working with citizens and groups within the community to find sustainable ways to meet their social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of their lives’.

In Section B (‘Developmental Local Government’) under paragraph 3.1 addresses ‘Integrated development planning, budgeting and performance monitoring’. Under the heading, ‘Ways in which IDP’s promote developmental local government’ the following is inter alia, stated:

‘They assist municipalities to focus on the environmental sustainability of their delivery and development strategies. Sustainable development is development that delivers basic social and economic services to all, without threatening the viability of the ecological and community systems upon which these services depend.

They help municipalities to develop a holistic strategy for poverty alleviation. Poverty is not just about low household income. It includes other aspects of deprivation such as a lack of assets to help households cope with shocks and stresses, a lack of the resources or contacts necessary to secure political advantage, a lack of access to education, health care and emergency services, and the lack of safe, secure, and adequately sized housing with basic services.’

The guideline document ‘Linking Local Economic Development to Poverty Alleviation’ issued by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development, in support of the White Paper on Local Government (Section B, paragraph 1.3), provides the following guidelines pertaining to Local Economic Development and alleviation of poverty as well as the specific role of local government:

‘Overall five broad areas of municipal policy intervention have been identified, based on experience in the developing world of poverty alleviation measures by local government. These areas of municipal policy intervention relate to:

regulatory frameworks;

access to municipal services;

employment creation;

security and protection from crime and natural disasters; and

co-ordination and integration.

The asset base of the poor may be eroded dramatically by the negative consequences of crime, violence or by the impact of disasters such as floods or environmental hazards. Security and protection for the poor are, therefore, critical dimensions of all survival strategies, particularly in what are generally hostile urban settings. Security relates to both individuals and their property while protection is interpreted more broadly to encompass protection from environmental disasters such as floods, fires or pollution.

The poor often are the group most vulnerable to environmental degradation. They live on most marginal land, often in overcrowded conditions. Lack of access to sewerage, sanitation or waste disposal services can have a harmful effect on the poor, who can least afford to bear these costs. The poor are also those most at risk in cases of major floods, fires, earthquakes or other hazards. Protection of the poor from environmental degradation is thus a key element in anti-poverty strategies at the local level. The most important step is for municipalities to become more aware of environmental risk and its incidence amongst different groups in the population and to prepare contingency programmes for emergency relief and measures for disaster prevention.’

With regard to disaster management the White Paper on Local Government states the following:

‘Effective disaster management requires that the resources and capabilities of all spheres of government are co-ordinated to prevent disasters where possible, and deal with them effectively where they occur. Each municipality should pro-actively plan for the prevention and management of disasters. Municipalities should, through their planning and implementation processes seek to minimise the vulnerability of communities and protect people who are at risk’.
The White Paper on Disaster Management
‘In short the policy aims to:

Provide an enabling environment for disaster management

Promote proactive disaster management through risk reduction programmes

Improve South Africa’s ability to manage emergencies or disasters and their consequences in a co-ordinated, efficient and effective manner

Promote integrated and co-ordinated disaster management through partnerships between different stakeholders and through co-operative relations between all spheres of government’

Under the heading ‘Developing a New Approach’ the following policy statement is, inter alia, made:

Under the heading ‘Establishment of Provincial and Local Disaster Management Structures’ the White Paper on Disaster Management states the following:

‘The legislation should be subject to the availability of government funds, provide for the establishment of provincial and local disaster management structures. This will ensure that disaster management is dealt with in a co-ordinated and efficient way at provincial and local levels.

The proposed legislation should include mechanisms to co-ordinate the efforts of various government agencies in emergency situations even when a disaster has not been declared.

The compilation of disaster plans is essential for:

Anticipating the types of disasters that might occur and their possible effects

Identifying prevention and mitigation strategies (and areas and communities at risk) and how much they will cost

Co-ordinating disaster response among all role players

Procuring essential goods and services

Identifying weaknesses in capacity and training so that plans for disaster management and relief operations can be made in advance.’

Under the heading ‘Summary of significant features of the policy’, the following statement is, inter alia, made:

It is the official view of SALGA (following a resolution taken at the July ‘99 AGM held in Port Elizabeth) that the 107-service should best be delivered at the District and Metropolitan levels of local government. In terms of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998, the policy approach of SALGA therefore is that the rendering of the 107-service should be Category A and C municipal functions.

Although the 107-service is not mentioned in any appropriate Sections of the Act or in Part A of Schedules 4 or 5 or alternatively Part B of Schedule 4 of the Constitution, it could be argued that the 107-service could be assigned to the local sphere of government in terms of Section 156(1)(b).

Assigning the 107-service to Category A and C municipalities could therefore be executed by the national government in terms of Section 83(1) of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998.

SETTING THE PRINCIPLE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 107-SERVICE

Against the background of the abovementioned legislative and policy framework the TTT is of the opinion that the principle framework for the establishment of a 107-service, should contain the following principles and following that the proposed amended 107 legislation should be based on such principles:

There is a direct linkage between the developmental objectives of local government to address the basic needs of communities and the establishment of a 107-service, in as much as that such service would provide access to all resources in a co-ordinated manner. Establishing a 107-service could therefore be seen within in realm of development.

There is a direct linkage between disaster management and the establishment and functioning of a 107-service in view of the following:

the shared requirement to ensure co-ordinated planning and resource application;

the shared requirement to establish infrastructure with the objective to ensure co-ordinated, integrated response;

the inter-dependant need for high level technology to be applied as mechanism to co-ordinate activities of all stakeholders during emergencies and disasters as well as to gather and collate information;

the fact that both disaster management and the 107-service could be regarded as multi-disciplinary, co-ordinating functions rather than so-called line-functions.

In view of the intrinsic multi-disciplanary functionality of the 107-service the TTT is of the opinion that such function should best not be entrusted to any specific line-function discipline as such situation could result in functional clashes between service partners and agencies.

The TTT is firmly of the opinion that the 107-responsibility at national level should be entrusted to the Department of Provincial and Local Government and not to the Department of Communications in view of the generic linkage between service delivery and development as well as the rendering of the 107-service. A lack of understanding of the dynamics of provincial and local government could, in the longer term, impact negatively on the sustained rendering of the 107-service. In view of the fact that the Department of Provincial and Local Government has been entrusted with the disaster management function and the establishment of the National Disaster Management Centre, it is only logic to entrust the 107-responsibility to the latter. The TTT therefore recommends that Cabinet be requested to reassign the 107-responsibility to the Department of Provincial and Local Government and to ensure the availability of applicable resources within the latter department.

The TTT is firmly opposed to the proposal made by the Consultants that a 107-Agency (as a Section 21 company) be established by DoC in order to execute overarching administrative responsibilities pertaining to 107-services. The TTT is of the opinion that a permanent 107-secretariat within the Department of Provincial and Local Government, supported by the existing Interdepartmental Committee comprising of stakeholders, could effectively execute the responsibilities of administering the Act and national policy. The establishment of the proposed 107-Agency shall without doubt, direct much needed funding away from the actual need for service delivery at local level and it is therefore recommended that the proposed establishment of the 107-Agency not be supported by SALGA and that SALGA should insist on the 107-service to be included into the IDP strategies of both provincial and local government.

The TTT is firmly of the opinion that any possible amendments to legislation and policy pertaining to the rendering of the 107-service, be preceded by the accepted Green and White Paper processes with the view to accommodate inclusive consultation and the clear identifying of the developmental objectives of the 107-service. The TTT is of the opinion that DoC should not be permitted by SALGA to short circuit the Green and White Paper processes.

The TTT is of the opinion that the effective rendering of a 107-service could only be achieved once effective redeployment of resources, such as fire and emergency medical services, have been done. Redeployment of resources is a critical element in the ensuring of effective, equitable service delivery to all communities. The rationale behind this approach is simply that one cannot provide access (by means of a 107-service) to resources without the existence of an ability to respond. In accepting this principle it follows that, in contrast to the apparent belief of DoC, a 107-service could not merely be regarded as a so-called, call-taking service, but, that it should be capable of executing effective service co-ordination.

The establishment of 107-services in association with the IDP’s of local government, should be the primary objective of the responsible department, followed by evolution of such services to integrated, multi-disciplanary Emergency Operations Centres whereas the process of evolution to fully integrated multi-disciplanary services should not be dictated by such department.

REPORT APPROVED BY TECHNICAL TASK TEAM ON 2 NOVEMBER 1999

Annexure D

Ref : 12/3/16-JJ/dm

23 June 2000

Mr D H Mokobe

South African Local Government Association

P O Box 2094

Pretoria

0001

Sir

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTRES: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS: COMMENTS OF TECHNICAL TASK TEAM (SALGA) ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND 107:

With reference to the abovementioned, please find attached hereto a copy of the documentation presented to the Minister of Communications by Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton (SA), the official consultants of the Department of Communications.

The report, following a series of workshops, contains alarming statements, views and recommendations, inter alia, contradicting the views of SALGA, as adopted at the 1999 AGM. It also contains recommendations and assumptions in total conflict to the views of the Technical Task Team (TTT).

You will recall that the TTT cautioned beforehand that the recommendations of DOC to Cabinet, could contain alarming elements. The TTT, herewith has to express its grave concern with the report, recommendations made and the procedures followed throughout the investigation of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton.

During the early part of 2000, DOC was requested by SALGA to provide the latter with its terms of reference pertaining to this investigation and as far as the TTT knows, such information has not been supplied to date, yet, the report has been finalised and presented to the Minister who in turn indicated that she is going to present the report to the Cabinet Committee Meeting.

At the outset it must be stressed that the role SALGA, technical representatives played in the process leading up to the publishing of the report, was continuously questioned by Messrs. Booz-Allen & Hamilton (referred as the Consultants) and none of the views of these representatives have been included or eluded to in the report. The fact that the official request of SALGA, for the terms of reference used by DOC and the Consultants, has not been responded to, is indicative of the general defying approach maintained towards SALGA and its representatives. A further alarming fact is that SALGA has not been presented with a copy of the attached report in order to comment on the remarks, statements and recommendations contained in the report. The reference made by the Consultants in the report, to the role SALGA played in the investigation process, is to say the least, misleading and not a true reflection of events. In general the SALGA technical representatives did not agree to more than 80% of the views of DOC and the Consultants.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

On page 5 of the report, under the heading ‘Findings’, reference is made to ‘legal documents’ which were considered. It is of material importance to note that no reference is made to the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, and in particular the objectives of the demarcation process as contained in section 24 of the Act.

The failure of the Consultants to take due note of the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, is of major concern to the TTT, whereas, it has to be accepted that such failure, either confirms the inability of the Consultants to comprehend the pivotal role of local government in service delivery to the peoples of South Africa, or, that the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, has deliberately not been taken into account in view of the nullifying of many of the arguments, contained in the report.

It is the view of the TTT that the Consultants deliberately refrained from referring to ,or, taking account of the full mandate and duty of the Municipal Demarcation Board, whereas, such tasks also includes the fact that following completion of the municipal demarcation process, all other functional borders applicable to the functions of government, should be rationalised in order to coincide with the demarcated municipal areas of jurisdiction.

It is not clear on what informed basis the following comment on page 3 could have been made if the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, had not even been considered:

‘Change in boundaries. The establishment of 107 reporting centres was based on municipal boundaries, however the fact that the boundaries are not homogeneous for the police, traffic, ambulance, fire and Telkom exchange areas, has created operation problems.’

It is also of material importance to note that no reference is made in the report to the Municipal Structures Act, 1998. SALGA representatives repeatedly urged the Consultants and DOC to take due note of the transformation of local government, as distinct sphere of government, - which clearly had not been done. Any reference therefore made in the report to the role of local government refers to historical relevance only, with no attention given to the endeavours of government to correct any possible service delivery difficulties and failures of the past with the implementation of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998.

The only, yet, meaningless, remark made in the report to the transformation process within the local sphere of government, is found on page 6, of the report:

‘Provincial and local boundaries have changed in 1994 and are in the process of been (sic) changed with the new demarcation.’

Clearly, the objectives of demarcation and the implementation of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998, is of no significance to the Consultants or to DOC - in fact the following, clearly stated statutory objectives, of the demarcation process as contained in section 24 of the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, were simply ignored:

‘(a) enable the municipality for that area to fulfil its constitutional

obligations, including -

(i) the provision of democratic and accountable government for the

local communities;

(ii) the provision of services to the communities in an equitable and

sustainable manner;

(iii) the promotion of social and economic development; and

(iv) the promotion of a safe and healthy environment;

(b) enable effective local governance;

(c) enable integrated development; and

(d) have a tax base as inclusive as possible of users of municipal services in the

municipality.’

It is also clear that the factors to be taken into account during the demarcation process, and, as described in section 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998, have not been noted by the Consultants. These factors includes material matters and therefore the remarks pertaining to ‘Fragmented governance’ on page 5 of the report, should be ignored as irrelevant to the future of local government.

No note has been taken of the Municipal Systems Bill, 1999, or the Disaster Management Bill, 2000 and it cannot be understood how the Consultants could on page 5 of the report, state, that, ‘In formulating the national strategy and enabling legislation for Public Emergency Communication Centres the implications of the following legal documents (sic) must be considered....’ without taking any note of material existing and proposed legislation. To base the formulation of a ‘national strategy and enabling legislation’ on only the ‘legal documents’ referred in the report, is nothing short of being unprofessional and the TTT has to, in no uncertain terms, distance itself from such uninformed remarks contained in the report.

The fact that the Disaster Management Bill, 2000, has clearly been ignored by the Consultants and DOC, is of major concern to the TTT. The Bill in section 39, pertaining to the functions and powers of the municipal disaster management office, clearly requires the following:

‘(c) must act as a repository and conduit for information concerning disasters, impending disasters and disaster management in the municipality’

In section 41, pertaining to assistance to the National Disaster Management Centre, the Bill requires the following from the municipal disaster management office:

‘(1) A municipal disaster management office must assist the Centre at the Centre’s

request-

to identify and establish communication links with disaster management role

players in the municipal area for the purposes of section 16;

to develop and maintain the disaster management electronic databank as envisaged in section 17 in so far as the databank applies to the municipality’

In section 42, pertaining to disasters occurring or threatening the municipal areas, the Bill requires the following from the municipal disaster management office:

‘(a) initiate efforts to assess the magnitude and severity or potential

magnitude and severity of the disaster;

(b) inform the Centre and the relevant provincial disaster management

office of the disaster and its initial assessment of the magnitude and

severity or potential magnitude and severity of the disaster;

(c) alert disaster management role players in the municipal area that may

be of assistance in the circumstances; and

(d) initiate the implementation of any contingency plans and emergency

procedures that may be applicable in the circumstances’.

How a ‘national strategy’ could be formulated or suggested without taking note of the above, far reaching proposed legal requirements, makes a mockery of the recommendations of the Consultants.

The proposals of the Consultants to separate the proposed Public Emergency Communication Centres (PECC’s) from local government, whereas, the Disaster Management Bill, 2000, clearly requires of local government to have such communication facilities (or, how else will the requirements of the Disaster Management Bill, 2000, be met?), signifies the inability of the Consultants to conduct an informed, professional and inclusive investigation process. The TTT has to confirm that regular warnings have been given to the Consultants, not to imply the duplication of costs in their approach. The clear ignoring of the Bill, shall, without doubt, result in the duplication of expenditure should the uninformed proposals of the Consultants be accepted by Government. The repeated views of the TTT that the investigation into the 107-Concept should be reverted back to the Department of Provincial and Local Government, is substantiated by the stated, uniformed views and recommendations of the Consultants.

The fact that very little, if any, attention has been given to the fundamental government policy views contained in the White Paper on Disaster Management is cause for further concern.

The White Paper, inter alia, contains the following fundamental relevant policy principles:

‘Local government is also empowered to deal with a number of functions which are closely related to disaster management under Part B of Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution. In addition, section 152(1)(d) of the Constitution requires local government to promote a safe and healthy environment.

The proposed disaster management policy pursues the above-mentioned constitutional obligations. It also aims to give effect to various rights contained in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. This includes the right to life, equality, human dignity, environment, property, health care, food, water and social security.

A further fundamental purpose of the policy is to advocate an approach to disaster management that focuses on reducing risks - the risk of loss of life, economic loss, and damage to property, especially to those sections of the population who are most vulnerable due to poverty and a general lack of resources. It also aims to protect the environment.

This approach involves a shift away from a perception that disasters are rare occurrences managed by emergency rescue and support services. A shared awareness and responsibility needs to be created to reduce risk in our homes, communities, places of work and in society generally.

This requires a significantly improved capacity to track, monitor and disseminate information on phenomena and activities that trigger disaster events. It needs the support of institutional emergency preparedness and response capacity at local, provincial and national levels.

The policy signifies a shift away from the disproportionate emphasis giver to rare major disasters. It seeks to include relatively smaller household and community disasters and the resulting losses borne by different sectors of society.’

To the informed reader of the report of the Consultants, it appears as if the abovementioned policy statements of government have not been taken note of by the Consultants.

The White Paper on Local Government clearly signifies a movement away from ad hoc and fragmented service delivery - aspects of which the Consultants chose not to take note of. The following policy statement in this regard is of material importance:

‘Within any local area many different agencies contribute to development, including national and provincial departments, para-statals, trade unions, community groups and private sector institutions. Developmental local government must provide a vision and leadership for all those who have a role to play in achieving local prosperity. Poor co-ordination between service providers could severely undermine the development effort. Municipalities should actively develop ways to leverage resources and investment from both the public and private sectors to meet development targets.

One of the most important methods for achieving greater co-ordination and integration is integrated development planning. Integrated development plans (IDPs) provide powerful tools for municipalities to facilitate integrated and co-ordinated delivery within their locality.

While strategies for building human settlements may differ between localities, it is clear that the establishment of sustainable and liveable settlements depends on the co-ordination of a range of services and regulations, including land-use planning, household infrastructure, environmental management, transport, health and education, safety and security and housing. Municipalities will need to work closely with other spheres of government and service providers and play an active integrating and co-ordinating role here.

Municipalities face immense challenges in developing sustainable settlements which meet the needs and improve the quality of life of local communities. To meet these challenges, municipalities will need to understand the various dynamics operating within their area, develop a concrete vision for the area, and strategies for realising and financing that vision in partnership with other stakeholders.

Integrated development planning is a process through which a municipality can establish a development plan for the short, medium and long term. The main steps in producing an IDP are:

An assessment of the current social, economic and environmental reality in the municipal area - the current reality.

A determination of community needs through close consultation.

Developing a vision for development in the area.

An audit of available resources, skills and capacities.

A prioritisation of these needs in order of urgency and long-term importance.

The development of integrated frameworks and goals to meet these needs.

The formulation of strategies to achieve the goals within specific time frames.

The implementation of projects and programmes to achieve key goals.

The use of monitoring tools to measure impact and performance.

While the idea behind IDP’s is to build up a comprehensive integrated plan, municipalities cannot plan everything in detail in the first year. Rather, IDP’s should empower municipalities to prioritise and strategically focus their activities and resources. An attempt to plan too comprehensively may result in unrealistic plans that lack the human and financial resources for implementation.’

The guideline document ‘Linking Local Economic Development to Poverty Alleviation’, issued by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development in support of the White Paper on Local Government (Section B, Paragraph 1.3), provides the following guidelines pertaining to Local Economic Development and alleviation of poverty as well as the specific role of local government:

regulatory frameworks;

access to municipal services;

employment creation;

security and protection from crime and natural disasters; and

co-ordination and integration.

The asset base of the poor may be eroded dramatically by the negative consequences of crime, violence or by the impact of disasters such as floods or environmental hazards. Security and protection for the poor are, therefore, critical dimensions of all survival strategies, particularly in what are generally hostile urban settings. Security relates to both individuals and their property while protection is interpreted more broadly to encompass protection from environmental disasters such as floods, fires or pollution.

The poor often are the group most vulnerable to environmental degradation. They live on the most marginal land, often in overcrowded conditions. Lack of access to sewerage, sanitation or waste disposal services can have a harmful effect on the poor, who can least afford to bear these costs. The poor are also those most at risk in cases of major floods, fires, earthquakes or other hazards. Protection of the poor from environmental degradation is thus a key element in anti-poverty strategies at the local level. The most important step is for municipalities to become more aware of environmental risk and its incidence amongst different groups in the population and to prepare contingency programmes for emergency relief and measures for disaster prevention.’

Again the critical, future, role of local government is emphasised without the Consultants referring to such role.

RECOMMENDATIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE TTT

Establishment of National Governing Body

The TTT has previously expressed its opposition to the establishment of such a ‘Governing Body’. The TTT maintains the view that an Inter-Departmental Committee comprising of all stakeholders, functioning under the chairmanship of the applicable national department and with a secretariat provided by such department, could effectively, both functionally and financially, execute responsibilities pertaining to the formulation of standards accreditation and functional inspections. The establishment of a separate ‘Governing Body’ could redirect much needed funding away from the service providers. The TTT cannot agree to the suggestion that national government or the Governing Body ‘will be responsible for the functioning of PECC’s’ as suggested on page 10 of the report.

The proposal of the Consultants that the PECC be ‘managed by a new organisation’ is rejected, outright, by the TTT.

Establishment of 21 Public Emergency Communication Centres (PECC’s)

The TTT maintains the view, in concurrence with the official views of SALGA, as adopted at the 1999 AGM, that the 107-function should best executed by metropolitan and district municipalities as envisaged in the Municipal Structures Act, 1998. The Consultants recommends that such service be rendered by the proposed ‘Governing Body’. The rendering of such function could be entrusted to metropolitan and district municipalities in terms of section 156 of the Constitution and section 83(1) of the Municipal Structures Act, 1998.

The proposals contained in the report pertaining to the establishment of 21 PECC’s is prescriptive and the critical role of local government in service delivery, overlooked and over-ruled. The key-development factor of providing all people access to services, including emergency services, and the pivotal role of such responsibility on the shoulders of local government, is ignored. The emergency needs of residents will, according to the recommendations, now be in the hands of a ‘Governing Body’, not linked to any local political accountability. It is the view of the TTT that such proposal simply does not fit the responsibilities of local government to build and enhance democracy and community involvement in South Africa.

The proposals of the Consultants that a predetermined 21 PECC’s be established in the Country, is rejected outright by the TTT.

Legislation and policy should be (a) enabling and (b) compelling, whereas those metropolitan and district municipalities (or grouping of municipalities in accordance with agreement or need) willing to take on the responsibility, should be enabled to do so both functionally (accreditation) and financially (levy payments) but should then be compelled to maintain required standards.

PECC’s should be viewed by local government as an instrument with which service penetration into all communities could be achieved, as well as, an instrument with which equitable, co-ordinated service delivery could be ensured. From a local government point of view, it is difficult to envisage the role of the proposed ‘Governing Body’, in this respect.

The proposal of the Consultants, do not take any note of the factors applicable to demarcation as described in the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1998. How the Consultants could think that such factors would not be applicable to the rendering of the 107-service, is not clear at all.

The Consultants took no note of the requirements of the Disaster Management Bill, 2000, which will have a major impact on emergency communication requirements, in this Country in future. Such ignoring of fundamental information could lead to major duplication of costs.

Disproportionate emphasis on technology

The TTT cannot agree with the disproportionate emphasis placed on technology by the Consultants. PECC’s should not only be technology driven. It must be, essentially, needs driven whereas the latter is supported by available technology. The impression is created in the report that the emphasis should be placed on technology. Such suggestion is incorrect. Needs, reflected in democratic society by means of legislation and policy and represented by means of political will, must at all times be the determining factor. In order to effectively address such needs, technology could play an important role. This critical factor of good governance has been ignored by the Consultants with its disproportionate emphasis on technology as the determining factor.

In Johannesburg effective emergency communication could require the use of integrated electronic systems, whereas in Pofadder community needs could be effectively addressed by means of the 67Mhz radio-network. It is not correct to suggest that one national technology standard should be applicable throughout the Country. The impression is created throughout the report that needs follows technology, that governance follows technology.

Technology cannot determine the outcome of democratic will and likewise it cannot determine community specific, needs. The disproportionate technology approach of the Consultants cannot be supported by the TTT.

General top-down approach

The general top-down approach followed by the Consultants cannot be supported by the TTT. Local government is no longer merely a third tier of government but is recognised by the Constitution as a distinct sphere of government. How it could be suggested by the Consultants to simply ignore the critical role of local government in the rendering of services, suggests that they are technocrats with very little, if any, feel and understanding of governance. The TTT has no difficulty with accepting the fact that national government would be responsible for legislation (including policy) and the administering thereof. To, however, suggest that a national department could institute a ‘Governing Body’ to deliver a service and in so doing committing local government resources, is not acceptable. How will it, for example, be possible for the proposed PECC in Kimberley to understand the fire resource capacity of Upington - or will such inability lead to further compelling legislation applicable to local government? A top-down governance model brings with it truckloads of legislation in order to be effective. The TTT cannot support the inevitable impact the proposed top-down approach suggested by the Consultants will have on local government.

Also in this regard it is remarkable how the Consultants succeeded in simply ignoring the role of provincial government.

Models of configuration

The proposal of the Consultants on page 22 of the report, pertaining to the integrated call taking and dispatching centre model, again reflects the general prescriptive, top-down approach. It should be left to service providers to determine which specific model applies best to its specific circumstances. Again needs should determine functionality, and not vice versa.

The disproportionate reference made the USA throughout the report suggests the fact that the Consultants do not fully understand the current needs within South Africa. Standards for South Africa cannot simply be based on USA models or, as suggested, ‘international benchmarking’. South Africa is a developing country, with a very nasty past. These factors, compels the seeking of mechanisms to ensure access to services and the ensuring of equitable service delivery - not meeting USA standards. South Africans need to know, see and feel, that, they are important to government - that government, and in particular local government, cares and is fully committed to ensuring dignity and a safe and healthy environment. The Consultants basing their views on technology and ‘international benchmarking’, missed the real essence of emergency communication, namely to ensure user-friendly, service co-ordination to the benefit of all - and the role of local government in this process is key.

Views on current legislation

The generalised statement on page 2 of the report, that, ‘There is a movement away from the proposed model of call-taking and transferring calls to the control centre, to an integrated call-taking and dispatching centre’ is an unqualified statement which has no material relevance to current legislation.

The impression created by the Consultants is that legislation should be amended to accommodate their disproportionate emphasis on the importance of technology, the proposed 21 PECC’s and the establishment of the proposed ‘Governing Body’. The report is full of unqualified statements which strengthens the belief of the TTT that specific views are being motivated rather than presenting a factual and objective report containing the views of all role-players and seeking to find synergy.

Standards

No legislation, policy or standard, will ever have the desired effect if not enforced by a party having the authority to do so. For this purpose a ‘Governing Body’ is not required - a national department, which understands, and, is committed to local government, is what is required. The success achieved by the Department of Provincial and Local Government with the Y2K project at the end of 1999 is testimony of such a department.

From the proposals of the Consultants it is clear that DOC cannot enforce standards as it has no, or, little, functional jurisdiction over local government and it therefore speaks for itself that they have to advocate the establishment of a ‘Governing Body’ in order to justify and sustain its involvement in emergency communication.

The TTT is firmly of the opinion that the responsibility for the administering of the National Emergency Telephone Services Act, 1993, should best be reverted back to the Department of Provincial and Local Government, and, that such legislation, standards and policy should best be administered by the National Disaster Management Centre, within the latter department.

RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTED BY THE TTT

Funding

The lack of funding is the main contributing factor with regard to the slow development of 107-services in South Africa. This fact has been stressed over and over again, during the workshops held by the Consultants. The TTT is of the opinion that should local government (metropolitan and district municipalities) be afforded an additional dedicated source of funding, such services shall be established at an acceptable rate. The reasons for the non-establishing of 107-services should not be sought in legislation and policy, but in the lack of funding.

The TTT firmly supports the recommendations pertaining to the establishment of a telephone service levy provided that the bulk of such levy income is paid to the service providers, and, not to some newly created ‘Governing Body’.

CONCLUSION

The TTT has to express its disappointment with a thoroughly unprofessional and unqualified report, presented to the Minister. The report does not contain the valid and valuable views and contributions of the participants during the investigation process, does not adequately take note of government policies and legislation pertaining to local government in general - and certainly does not contain any reference to the views maintained by the representatives SALGA or its associated provincial Associations and it is therefore imperative for the TTT to distance itself from the contents of the report.

It is recommended that:

SALGA request the Department of Provincial and Local Government (National Disaster Management Centre) to comment on the report of the Consultants as well as the comments of the TTT, contained in this report, as soon as possible and to consider giving the TTT the task to compile a counter report.

Yours faithfully

J JORDAAN

CONVENOR: TECHNICAL TASK TEAM

Annexure F
Ref : 12/3/16-JJ/dm

30 August 2000

The Chief Director; Disaster Management

Department of Provincial and Local Government

Private Bag X 804

PRETORIA

0001

FAX : 012-334-0606

Sir

BI-LATERAL DISCUSSIONS : DEPARTMENT OF PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TECHNICAL TASK TEAM (SALGA) : TUESDAY 29 AUGUST 2000

With reference to the above please afford me this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the impact of the proposed disaster management legislation on the sphere of local government as well as the strengthening of communication between the three spheres of government with regard to the practicing of effective disaster management in South Africa.

May I, be so bold as to confirm the following as agreed to during the discussions:

The Technical Task Team (TTT) is desirous to establish closer liaison with the national and provincial spheres of government with the view to establish and to sustain synergy of focus with regard to the practicing of disaster management whereas it is clear from the proposed legislation that it will be expected of local government to execute effective disaster management to the benefit of all our peoples. The TTT is of the opinion that the efforts of all three spheres of government could be maximized by focusing on specific objectives, collectively, especially in view of the proposed statutory shift away from the historic disproportionate emphasis on reactive disaster response towards the proactive management of risks and vulnerability. The TTT is of the opinion that only by means of a collective, focused approach by all three spheres of government, the aims of the legislature will be met. In this regard we agreed that you would be requested, in writing, to facilitate a meeting between functional representatives of all three spheres of government around the forthcoming IDMC meeting to be held on Thursday 21 September 2000.

It was agreed that the comments of the TTT on the report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton, which comments had been submitted to the Social and Economic Development Working Group of SALGA, would be provided to the Department of Communications in order to promote transparency. The TTT agreed to this request despite the fact that SALGA has at no stage been requested by the Department of Communications to officially respond to the report.

In view of the fact that the proposed disaster management legislation will only be promulgated during 2001, and the fact that local government in general is currently being transformed in accordance with the recommendations of the Municipal Demarcation Board and the Municipal Structures Act, 1998, a positional/functional vacuum has been created with regard to the execution of the disaster management function at local government level. Major concerns have been raised by functionaries, throughout the Country that this vacuum during a time of the dramatic transformation and restructuring of local government in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, could see the demise of disaster management at local government level. It was agreed during our discussions that you would approach the Director General and the Minister of Provincial and Local Government, to issue a written advise to all the MEC’s for Local Government to, during the transformation process and the allocation of powers, duties and functions to Category A, B and C municipalities, take note of the contents of the Disaster Management Bill and to account for such proposed statutory requirements in the transformation process. A copy of such written guidance would also be provided to SALGA (TTT).

In conclusion I herewith, once again, have to pledge the full support of the TTT in your endeavors to ensure the rendering of effective preventative disaster management to the benefit of all our peoples.

Yours faithfully

J JORDAAN

CONVENER: TECHNICAL TASK TEAM

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

SALGA

Annexure G
Ref : 12 /3/16-JJ/dm

30 August 2000

The Director General

Department of Communications

Private Bag X860

PRETORIA

0001

ATTENTION: MR J RADEBE

FAX: 012-427-8164

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTRES: MESSRS BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON

During a recent meeting pertaining to the Disaster Management Bill, held with the Chief Director; Disaster Management of the Department of Provincial and Local Government, and in particular the impact of the proposed legislation on the local sphere of government, specific elements pertaining to emergency communication as contained in the report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton, inevitably came under discussion.

The Chief Director; Disaster Management was informed that the Technical Task Team of the Social and Economic Development Working Group of SALGA did not respond favorably to the report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton and the fact that the Working Group of SALGA had been advised accordingly. Following this information, the Chief Director; Disaster Management requested the Technical Task Team to provide your Department with its comments submitted to SALGA.

The Technical Task Team was of the opinion that the Department of Communications did not officially provide a copy of the report to SALGA for comments, and that it therefore could not see any value in the submission of its unofficial comments to the latter Department. The Chief Director; Disaster Management, however, urged the Technical Task Team to submit its comments to your Department for transparency purposes.

In view of the abovementioned request a copy of the comments of the Technical Task Team on the report of Messrs Booz-Allen & Hamilton, is attached for your information.

Yours sincerely

J JORDAAN

CONVENER: TECHNICAL TASK TEAM
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

SALGA

Copy to: Chief Director; Disaster Management

Department of Provincial and Local Government

Annexure G

Ref :12 /3/16-JJ/dm

30 August 2000

The Director General

Department of Communications

Private Bag X860

PRETORIA

0001

ATTENTION: MR J RADEBE

FAX: 012-427-8164

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY

COMMUNICATION CENTRES: MESSRS BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON

In view of the abovementioned request a copy of the comments of the Technical Task Team on the report of Messrs Booz-Allen ft Hamilton, is attached for your information.

Yours sincerely

J JORDAAN

CONVENER: TECHNICAL TASK TEAM

SOCiAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

SAL GA

Copy to: Chief Director; Disaster Management

Department of Provincial and Local Government